Monday, December 15, 2014

A Scenario (your answers)

DQ VB.NET Advisor Garret Rempel is really quite droll. Please see his analysis of "A Scenario" below.Obviously the best case scenario for all involved would have been to:1) Hang onto the UPS2) Turn your body to shield the UPS from damage by taking the brunt of the collision with your spine3) Fall awkwardly and push the UPS out of the way while being run over by the vehicle

In a capitalist society this result ensure maximum profit distribution in that:1) The vendor for the UPS is not required to provide warranty on the UPS system which escaped damage2) The vehicle owner's insurance company is able to increase rates due to an at-fault collision that caused no damage to the vehicle3) Your hospital gains a reliable ongoing revenue stream from your injury due to ongoing lifelong treatmentand4) Another uppity pedestrian learns a valuable lesson that the outdoors are the sole domain of motorized vehicles, and any 'biological' who dares to venture out of doors risks death and dismemberment

I have no quibbles with that analysis.

Also, from Nick Youngblood, and I believe this is quite a bit more "legally" than Rempel of the Bailey, a link that clearly explains the basic elements of a negligence case. In case you're just too lazy, there are five basic elements here: duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate causes, and damages.

In very basic terms, it must be established that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff, and here's a hypothetical:

In the example involving the defendant loading bags of grain onto a truck, and striking a child with one of the bags, the first question that must be resolved is whether the defendant owed a duty to the child. In other words, a court would need to decide whether the defendant and the child had a relationship such that the defendant was required to exercise reasonable care in handling the bags of grain near the child. If the loading dock were near a public place, such a public sidewalk, and the child was merely passing by, then the court may be more likely to find that the defendant owed a duty to the child. On the other hand, if the child were trespassing on private property and the defendant did not know that the child was present at the time of the accident, then the court would be less likely to find that the defendant owed a duty.

If you have an interest in this kind of legal situation, I highly recommend the link--it's quite readable and extremely clear.